The sales contract of this case constitutes fraudulent act

The instant real estate constitutes a fraudulent act, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge the claim of the AA that the instant real estate was created by AA and title trust to the spouse.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act: Revocation and Restoration of Fraudulent Act

2013 Ghana 72551 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AA

November 5, 2013

December 24, 2013

1. The sales contract concluded between AA and BB on March 17, 200 with respect to 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, and the sales contract concluded on October 28, 200 XX. 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2. AA will implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration completed by the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on March 18, 200, with respect to BB’s share of 1/2 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, and the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration completed by the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on October 31, 200, with respect to the share of 1/2 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

3. Litigation Costs shall be borne by AA.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. BB sold three parcels of land, which was owned by it on February 4, 200 XX, during the compulsory auction procedure for real estate auction, but the land was sold during the real estate auction procedure. However, BB is in arrears with the transfer income tax of ○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax claim”) (the tax liability, February 28, 200, when the tax liability is established).

B. BB entered into a sales contract with the husband on March 17, 200 with respect to one-half portion of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "real estate of this case"), and completed the registration of ownership transfer with the ○○ District Court ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on March 18, 200, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to one-half portion of the instant real estate on October 28, 200, respectively (hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant sales contract"), and entered into a sales contract with the ○○ District Court ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on October 31, 200, respectively (hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant sales contract").

C. At the time of conclusion of each of the instant sales contracts, BB did not own any property other than the instant real estate.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

According to the above facts, since BB’s capital gains tax liability was established prior to the date of conclusion of each of the instant sales contracts between AA and BB, the instant tax claim is the preserved claim for revocation of fraudulent act.

(b) The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

Unless there are special circumstances, the debtor's act of selling real estate, which is one of his own property, and changing it into money or transferring it to another person without compensation, becomes a fraudulent act against the creditor. Thus, the debtor's intent of deception is presumed, and the burden of proving that the purchaser or the transferee did not maliciously perform his/her duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001) is presumed to be a beneficiary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da41875, Apr. 24, 201). According to the above facts finding, the act of BB entering into each of the instant sales contracts and completing the registration of transfer of ownership in relation to the general creditors of B B including the plaintiff, under the circumstances where B bears the tax liability of this case, is a fraudulent act in relation to the general creditors of BB including the plaintiff, and therefore, BB is presumed to be a beneficiary'

For this reason, AA was prepared by AA, and it was made in the future BB, which was only the name of AA, so each of the instant sales contracts was alleged to the effect that not only did it constitute a fraudulent act but also did not know that the creditors including the Plaintiff were harmed. However, each of the statements of Nos. 1 through 3 is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, AA’s above assertion is not accepted.

(c) Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

Therefore, each of the instant sales contracts between AA and BB shall be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act, and AA shall implement the procedure for registration cancellation of each of the instant transfer of ownership to BB.

have obligations.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.